Reflections by Joseph Ostrander
Friday night found 14 playful souls exploring the parameters of a new theological sandbox Chris assembled for us.
Our inaugural theological theme requiring deeper contemplation and clarification was, at first glance, mere child’s play: what is the gospel? The topic seems to be a simple exercise in constructing a basic Christian doctrinal definition. You know, like making the cookie-cutter sand castle using the built-in turret bucket design that provides a ready-made element to our Christian faith foundation. But after shifting around the sand in our attempts to mold our gospel definitions with our sandbox toys, we discovered there was still more sand beneath the holes we had excavated. There was much more nuance to our understanding of the gospel than time permitted us to uncover…
One of the most challenging elements of the combined efforts was this: no matter how concise the definitions were about the gospel, it seemed the theological implications were inversely proportional. Greater theological minds have condensed the extent of the gospel into one or two sentences, but they used words or phrases that still required substantial unpacking, definition, and additional consideration that was not easily recognizable in its original brevity…
I was amazed at the depth and breadth and diverse perspectives shared about what the gospel was, and even more importantly, what the gospel wasn’t. From what was shared last night, it seems many of the attendees had been exposed to very syncretic versions of the gospel. There were versions that were basically, ‘bad news’, or get-out-hell-free exhortations, to elements of a positivity themed over-emphasis, or the application of the blood of Jesus as a talisman, or a very narrow gospel of ‘me’ that somehow obligated God to respond more like a slot machine than a Heavenly Father. In our efforts to construct a more accurate sand castle that better represented what we appreciated about the gospel, we first had to deconstruct what we agreed upon were mischaracterizations of how the gospel had been misused and misrepresented…
Even though I felt I had a good ‘grasp’ of the important elements of the gospel, I left the evening’s considerations with more nuances to contemplate. There were elements of the gospel presented by the other attendees that were outside the moat of my own carefully fashioned sand castle. And I do believe that is how it should be. I will leave you with my own definition of how I understand what the gospel is at this juncture of my spiritual journey (a personal understanding of John 3:16-21):
For me, the core of what is God’s Good News is found nestled within the most well-known scriptural references where Jesus is having a very heaven-and-earth shaking theological discussion with Nicodemus. First, God loves the world (cosmos). All of creation is what God loves and never stopped loving. Next is the clincher for me: God the Father did not send Jesus on a mission of condemnation as a divine fire insurance agent. Jesus was not the stern moralist proclaiming God’s loathing of the sin-stained human species and the collateral damage to the earth and the rest of creation, or the stored up wrath of divine proportions. There is no fear mongering in the good news; there is no threat of punishment; there is no theological litmus test requirement of having the right understanding of soteriology; there is no hint of going through religious rites/rituals/hoops to be the beneficiary of said good news. That’s why I consider the good news, well…good…
It’s God’s invitation of a vital, restored relationship with all of mankind where every possible hindrance has been addressed, once-and-for-all removed, completely disarmed, thoroughly rendered null and void, and declared to be the unchanging motivation of God the Father that was signed-sealed-and-delivered through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of His beloved Son, the Christ, Jesus.
No ifs, ands, or buts. No religious prerequisites. No fine print.
Think about it…
Amen.